Point/Counter Point With Mr. McPhee

John McPhee infrequently lets the hand he's holding slip into public
view. There are hints, to be sure, but we the readers never overtly see
the author tip his hand by exaggerating certain characteristics while
glossing over others. There seems always to be an apparent balance in
McPhee's presentation of ideas and facts. This is certainly true in his
ordering of chapters. For example, chapter three of The Crofter and the
Laird opens with a warm story about Donald Gibbie's wedding, while the
next chapter announces itself by declaring Mr. Gibbie's words as "whips
that pack the cattle together and keep them going" all while Mr. Gibbie
"shout[s] angrily" (43). Simply by examining each chapter in this book,
it becomes apparent that McPhee is bouncing back and forth between
different interpretations of the inhabitants of Colonsay, all the while
keeping each chapterčand the subjective feel of said
chapter--independent of the possibly opposing view that will be
presented in the next chapter.

And McPhee does not limit this practice merely to his chapters, but also
includes it in his dialogue. For example, when McPhee hits Calum
McAllister's chicken with his car, the following conversation is
reported:

I knocked on McAllister's door. He opened it--a tall, gaunt, unshaven
man, a widower. I said that I had killed his chicken, and he said, "I
know. I know that."

I said I was very sorry, and he said, "It's not your fault. It's the
chicken's fault. The chicken should not have been in the road."

"I'd like to give you twelve shillings for the chicken."

"That is unnecessary."

"But I think I should pay for it, and I will feel better if you let me
do that."

"You can pay if you like, but the chicken should not have been in the
road" (94).

Again, we see this back and forth dialogue where neither side seems to
agree with the opposing viewpoint while we, the readers, are not sure
who to take as the voice of reason--the voice of the sage. Why does
McPhee do this? What do we gain by examining each side in an equally
subjective manner? What do we loose by not having an openly opinionated
guide?